Lawyerly

GR No. 207175

2014-11-26

MENDOZA, J.

It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. Though it is true that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. The exception is observed if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have cast doubt on the guilt of the accused.[9] The said exception apparently exists in the case at bench.

GR No. 204589

2014-11-19

RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Although it is true that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and not to be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. But an exception exists if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[19] After going over the records of the case at bench, the Court finds some facts of weight and substance that have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court which cast doubt on the guilt of Sanchez.

GR No. 188129

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR

MENDOZA, J.

In both incidents, the accused puts up the defense of denial and alibi. In a long line of cases, it has been consistently held that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative averment of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value than mere denial.[38] On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[39] As noted by the trial court: Besides, the claim of the accused that he stayed in Tabaco in (sic) the evening of July 14, 1999 until midnight was belied by his own admission during the hearing on February 17, 2000, thus:

GR No. 187154

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ

MENDOZA, J.

We are not swayed. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value.[20] Thus, the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses cannot be overcome by mere denial or alibi. For alibi to prosper, not only must an accused prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[21] The alibi of the accused, which was supported by the testimony of Baltazar Sabanal, cannot overcome the convincing positive evidence adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of relatives and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the court.[22]

GR No. 168299

2008-10-06

PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO

AZCUNA, J.

Considering that appellant's alibi was uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, the Court finds it self-serving and deserving of no weight in law.[30] Appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of private complainant that he was the one who raped her.[31]

GR Nos. 148804-06

2004-05-27

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL

QUISUMBING, J.

Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of civil indemnity as well as moral damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced to P50,000 only.[46] But in addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded to the complainant by way of example for the public good and to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from taking advantage of their own daughters.[47]

GR No. 154917

2004-05-18

PEOPLE v. RODANIEL VILLAFUERTE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Anent appellant's civil liability, Christine Joy is entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 as ordered by the trial court. The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be affirmed in view of the victim's injury inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the detestable crime of rape.[32]

GR No. 138366

2003-09-11

PEOPLE v. RUBEN CAÑETE

CORONA, J.

Neither could appellants' alibi prosper, since they failed to prove that they were at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.[36] Appellants Sergio and Trinidad's claim that they were at the mango plantation, just one kilometer away from the scene of the crime, did not negate the possibility that they had gone home before the incident to commit the crime. Their alleged presence at the mango plantation was not even established by a positive declaration from an independent witness.

GR No. 147033

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM

PANGANIBAN, J.

In the case before us, the age of private complainant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Information alleged that on May 31, 1997, the date of the rape, she was fifteen (15) years old. We agree with appellant that her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[67] Except for the bare, passing testimony of the victim that she was still a minor when the offense charged was committed, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to support this fact. Neither her obvious minority nor the absence of any contrary assertion from the defense,[68] or even an admission by the appellant can exempt the prosecution from the requirement of proving it. Here, no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school record[69] was presented before the trial court to prove her age at the time of the crime.

GR No. 148138

2003-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR

AZCUNA, J.

Appellant's defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over complainant's positive identification of appellant as the one who raped her.[42] Denials and alibis that are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving; thus, they deserve no weight in law and cannot prevail over the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[43]

GR No. 140724-26

2003-02-12

PEOPLE v. ALLEN BUSTAMANTE

CORONA, J.

For his part, appellant merely offered the defense of alibi and denial which were uncorroborated by any positive testimony of the people who were allegedly with him during the incident. However, time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the appellant, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.[34] Thus, the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses cannot be overcome by the mere denial of appellant or by mere alibi. For alibi to prosper, not only must appellant prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[35]

GR Nos. 136066-67

2003-02-04

PEOPLE v. BINAD SY CHUA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. The only exception is if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[11] In the case at bar, there appears on record some facts of weight and substance that have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court which casts doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the review of the penalty and indemnity imposed by the trial court.[12] We are clothed with ample authority to review matters, even those not raised on appeal, if we find that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case. Every circumstance in favor of the accused shall be considered.[13] This is in keeping with the constitutional mandate that every accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 147315

2003-01-13

PEOPLE v. TOMAS VISPERAS JR.

PANGANIBAN, J.

It is well-settled that a qualifying circumstance must be proven with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[40] There being no proven qualifying circumstance, appellant should have been convicted of homicide only, not murder.

GR No. 138471

2002-10-10

PEOPLE v. MANUEL PRUNA Y RAMIREZ OR ERMAN PRUNA Y RAMIREZ

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

held that while the declaration of a victim as to her age, being an exception to the hearsay proscription, would be admissible under the rule on pedigree, the question on the relative weight that may be accorded to it is another matter. The prosecution should present the victim's birth certificate or, in lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate, school records, and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial evidence that can help establish the age of the victim. Neither the obvious minority of the victim nor the absence any contrary assertion from the defense can exonerate the prosecution from its burden. Judicial notice of the issue of age without the requisite hearing under Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence would not be sufficient compliance with the law. 11. In People v. Alvarado,[69] the victim testified that she was 14 years old at the time of the rape, and this was confirmed by the accused, who was victim's father. The victim's mother, however, testified as to her date of birth which showed

GR No. 140676

2002-07-31

PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER

PANGANIBAN, J.

crime itself.[53] Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, appellant must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified, rape. This Court has consistently ruled that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[54] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to

GR No. 135027

2002-07-03

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO SORIANO

PER CURIAM

Against complainant's testimony, as set forth before, and the testimonies of her parents, the bare denial of accused-appellant and his defense of alibi cannot prevail. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[28] For alibi to prosper, not only must accused-appellant prove that he was in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[29] In this case, accused-appellant claimed that from January 1993 to August 1995, he was employed as a househelp of Clarita Tejano. Tejano testified that the only time accused-appellant left her house was in August 18, 1995. But it was shown that Clarita Tejano's house was within the same barangay where the rape took place. Even assuming that he worked in Clarita Tejano's house for two years, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to commit the crime.

GR No. 145460

2002-07-03

PEOPLE v. FELIPE PADILLA

MENDOZA, J.

The victim may suffer all types of physical injuries depending upon the resistance offered by her and the degree of force applied by the offender.[28] Fourth. It is in the light of these claims made by complainant that the testimonies of accused-appellant and complainant's mother assume significance. That complainant's mother was at home on November 24, 1996 because she had just given birth the day before has not been refuted by the prosecution. Although it is true that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed inside the house where there are other occupants,[29] we find it hard to believe that Erlita would fail to notice what was going on. The baby which complainant claimed had been thrown to the floor because she had been assaulted would have cried loudly and Erlita could not have failed to hear its cry. It taxes credulity even more for complainant to claim that accused-appellant did not pay attention to the fact that the one-day old baby boy had been thrown to the floor. Unless accused-appellant was driven by a maniacal lust, we find it improbable that he ignored what had happened to the baby who after all is his child. The scenario painted by the prosecution is simply unbelievable, unnatural, and contrary to human experience. Not only must a witness be credible in order to be believed; his or her testimony must itself be also credible and believable.[30]

	GR No. 207175 2014-11-26	EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. Though it is true that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. The exception is observed if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have cast doubt on the guilt of the accused.[9] The said exception apparently exists in the case at bench.
	GR No. 204589 2014-11-19	RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Although it is true that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and not to be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. But an exception exists if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[19] After going over the records of the case at bench, the Court finds some facts of weight and substance that have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court which cast doubt on the guilt of Sanchez.
	GR No. 188129 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR MENDOZA, J.
In both incidents, the accused puts up the defense of denial and alibi. In a long line of cases, it has been consistently held that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative averment of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value than mere denial.[38] On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[39] As noted by the trial court: Besides, the claim of the accused that he stayed in Tabaco in (sic) the evening of July 14, 1999 until midnight was belied by his own admission during the hearing on February 17, 2000, thus:
	GR No. 187154 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ MENDOZA, J.
We are not swayed. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value.[20] Thus, the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses cannot be overcome by mere denial or alibi. For alibi to prosper, not only must an accused prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[21] The alibi of the accused, which was supported by the testimony of Baltazar Sabanal, cannot overcome the convincing positive evidence adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of relatives and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the court.[22]
	GR No. 168299 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. LUIS AYCARDO AZCUNA, J.
Considering that appellant's alibi was uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, the Court finds it self-serving and deserving of no weight in law.[30] Appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of private complainant that he was the one who raped her.[31]
	GR Nos. 148804-06 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LIMIO Y QUEBRAL QUISUMBING, J.
Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of civil indemnity as well as moral damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced to P50,000 only.[46] But in addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded to the complainant by way of example for the public good and to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from taking advantage of their own daughters.[47]
	GR No. 154917 2004-05-18	PEOPLE v. RODANIEL VILLAFUERTE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Anent appellant's civil liability, Christine Joy is entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 as ordered by the trial court. The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be affirmed in view of the victim's injury inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the detestable crime of rape.[32]
	GR No. 138366 2003-09-11	PEOPLE v. RUBEN CAÑETE CORONA, J.
Neither could appellants' alibi prosper, since they failed to prove that they were at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.[36] Appellants Sergio and Trinidad's claim that they were at the mango plantation, just one kilometer away from the scene of the crime, did not negate the possibility that they had gone home before the incident to commit the crime. Their alleged presence at the mango plantation was not even established by a positive declaration from an independent witness.
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
In the case before us, the age of private complainant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Information alleged that on May 31, 1997, the date of the rape, she was fifteen (15) years old. We agree with appellant that her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[67] Except for the bare, passing testimony of the victim that she was still a minor when the offense charged was committed, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to support this fact. Neither her obvious minority nor the absence of any contrary assertion from the defense,[68] or even an admission by the appellant can exempt the prosecution from the requirement of proving it. Here, no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school record[69] was presented before the trial court to prove her age at the time of the crime.
	GR No. 148138 2003-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR AZCUNA, J.
Appellant's defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over complainant's positive identification of appellant as the one who raped her.[42] Denials and alibis that are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving; thus, they deserve no weight in law and cannot prevail over the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[43]
	GR No. 140724-26 2003-02-12	PEOPLE v. ALLEN BUSTAMANTE CORONA, J.
For his part, appellant merely offered the defense of alibi and denial which were uncorroborated by any positive testimony of the people who were allegedly with him during the incident. However, time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the appellant, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.[34] Thus, the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses cannot be overcome by the mere denial of appellant or by mere alibi. For alibi to prosper, not only must appellant prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[35]
	GR Nos. 136066-67 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. BINAD SY CHUA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. The only exception is if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[11] In the case at bar, there appears on record some facts of weight and substance that have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court which casts doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the review of the penalty and indemnity imposed by the trial court.[12] We are clothed with ample authority to review matters, even those not raised on appeal, if we find that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case. Every circumstance in favor of the accused shall be considered.[13] This is in keeping with the constitutional mandate that every accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 147315 2003-01-13	PEOPLE v. TOMAS VISPERAS JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
It is well-settled that a qualifying circumstance must be proven with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[40] There being no proven qualifying circumstance, appellant should have been convicted of homicide only, not murder.
	GR No. 138471 2002-10-10	PEOPLE v. MANUEL PRUNA Y RAMIREZ OR ERMAN PRUNA Y RAMIREZ DAVIDE JR., C.J.
held that while the declaration of a victim as to her age, being an exception to the hearsay proscription, would be admissible under the rule on pedigree, the question on the relative weight that may be accorded to it is another matter. The prosecution should present the victim's birth certificate or, in lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate, school records, and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial evidence that can help establish the age of the victim. Neither the obvious minority of the victim nor the absence any contrary assertion from the defense can exonerate the prosecution from its burden. Judicial notice of the issue of age without the requisite hearing under Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence would not be sufficient compliance with the law. 11. In People v. Alvarado,[69] the victim testified that she was 14 years old at the time of the rape, and this was confirmed by the accused, who was victim's father. The victim's mother, however, testified as to her date of birth which showed
	GR No. 140676 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. JAIME GONZALES Y PALLER PANGANIBAN, J.
crime itself.[53] Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, appellant must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified, rape. This Court has consistently ruled that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[54] If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise, the victim is entitled to
	GR No. 135027 2002-07-03	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO SORIANO PER CURIAM
Against complainant's testimony, as set forth before, and the testimonies of her parents, the bare denial of accused-appellant and his defense of alibi cannot prevail. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[28] For alibi to prosper, not only must accused-appellant prove that he was in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[29] In this case, accused-appellant claimed that from January 1993 to August 1995, he was employed as a househelp of Clarita Tejano. Tejano testified that the only time accused-appellant left her house was in August 18, 1995. But it was shown that Clarita Tejano's house was within the same barangay where the rape took place. Even assuming that he worked in Clarita Tejano's house for two years, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to commit the crime.
	GR No. 145460 2002-07-03	PEOPLE v. FELIPE PADILLA MENDOZA, J.
The victim may suffer all types of physical injuries depending upon the resistance offered by her and the degree of force applied by the offender.[28] Fourth. It is in the light of these claims made by complainant that the testimonies of accused-appellant and complainant's mother assume significance. That complainant's mother was at home on November 24, 1996 because she had just given birth the day before has not been refuted by the prosecution. Although it is true that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed inside the house where there are other occupants,[29] we find it hard to believe that Erlita would fail to notice what was going on. The baby which complainant claimed had been thrown to the floor because she had been assaulted would have cried loudly and Erlita could not have failed to hear its cry. It taxes credulity even more for complainant to claim that accused-appellant did not pay attention to the fact that the one-day old baby boy had been thrown to the floor. Unless accused-appellant was driven by a maniacal lust, we find it improbable that he ignored what had happened to the baby who after all is his child. The scenario painted by the prosecution is simply unbelievable, unnatural, and contrary to human experience. Not only must a witness be credible in order to be believed; his or her testimony must itself be also credible and believable.[30]

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO ALVARADO